ups_00066 — For grant of pension to a Class IV employee who joined as casual labour and regularized half of his casual service, full temporary service before regularization and the period of service rendered after regularization are to be clubbed to calculate the service of 10 years to calculate the pension eligibility

UPS

For grant of pension to a Class IV employee who joined as casual labour and regularized half of his casual service, full temporary service before regularization and the period of service rendered after regularization are to be clubbed to calculate the service of 10 years to calculate the pension eligibility — The chunk provided pertains to a court case where the judgment is being discussed, which endorses a view that for pension eligibility, half of a casual labor's service can be counted along with full ... — Facts: The Applicant is the widow of one retired Class IV servant in Nagpur Division of Central Railway. The present OA is filed by the wife of the deceased employee. The ex-employee is no more. A letter, dated 13-6-2001 was addressed to the ex-employee rejecting his request for family pension on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of qualifying service to get family pension. In the impugned letter, it is stated that the total service of ex-employee is only 9 years, 5 months and 25 days counting it from date of confirmation, i.e. 1-1-1981 to date of retirement on 30-6-1989. Challenging that Communication, dated 13-6-2001 this OA is filed. This OA is filed on 23-3-2009 after the death of her husband and M.A. No. 2068 of 2009 is also filed for condonation of delay. Refusal of pensionary benefits which is a continuous cause of action, limitation to file this OA does not arise. The husband of the Applicant worked as casual blacksmith from 21-10-1969 to 18-8-1976 and as Ty. Khalasi from 20-8-1976 to 18-1-1977. He was confirmed on 1-1-1989 after serving as Temporary Gangman from 1-1-1980. The Respondents counted his service only from 1-1-1980 to 30-6-1989 and left out the service as casual service and service on temporary status. In O.A. No. 2151 of 2007 and 3 others, the Tribunal relied on the High Court judgment in the case of Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway and another v. Sita Ram [ 2014 (1) AISLJ 372 ] and Union of India and another v. Manash Sarkar [ 2013 (3) SLR 296 ]. In those judgments, it was held that the concession of counting half of the service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, i.e. casual labour attained temporary status will count half of the casual service and full service on temporary status till regularization for the purpose of pensionary benefits by adding it to the regular service. The relevant paragraphs of that judgment, i.e. Paras. 9, 10 and 11 are reproduced verbatim. The above view is also endorsed in the case of G.M., South Central Railway v. Shaikh Abdul Kadar. Paras. 4 and 5 of that judgment is fully noted in the present judgment. The Tribunal allowed O.A. No. 2039 of 2004, Shri Brijkishore v. Union of India and another for similar reason for granting pension. Para. 12 of that judgment is reproduced for clarity. Hence the Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Applicant who is the widow of the deceased employee taking into account 50% of service rendered by her late husband as casual labour and 100% as temporary worker for the purpose of reckoning minimum qualifying service of ten years for pensionary benefits. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [ 2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 765 ] in a similar case ordered for payment of arrears limiting it to 3 years from the date of admission of the case. Paras. 4 to 8 of that judgment is reproduced verbatim. In this case, the husband of the Applicant who retired on 30-6-1989 approached the pension adalat which rejected his claim by Letter, dated 27-9-2005. Four years after the death of her husband, the Applicant herein submitted a representation for ex gratia pension and not for family pension, which was also rejected on the ground that ex gratia payment can be granted to those employees who retired prior to 1-1-1986.

UPS

For grant of pension to a Class IV employee who joined as casual labour and regularized half of his casual service, full temporary service before regularization and the period of service rendered after regularization are to be clubbed to calculate the service of 10 years to calculate the pension eligibility — The chunk provided pertains to a court case where the judgment is being discussed, which endorses a view that for pension eligibility, half of a casual labor's service can be counted along with full ... — Facts: The Applicant is the widow of one retired Class IV servant in Nagpur Division of Central Railway. The present OA is filed by the wife of the deceased employee. The ex-employee is no more. A letter, dated 13-6-2001 was addressed to the ex-employee rejecting his request for family pension on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of qualifying service to get family pension. In the impugned letter, it is stated that the total service of ex-employee is only 9 years, 5 months and 25 days counting it from date of confirmation, i.e. 1-1-1981 to date of retirement on 30-6-1989. Challenging that Communication, dated 13-6-2001 this OA is filed. This OA is filed on 23-3-2009 after the death of her husband and M.A. No. 2068 of 2009 is also filed for condonation of delay. Refusal of pensionary benefits which is a continuous cause of action, limitation to file this OA does not arise. The husband of the Applicant worked as casual blacksmith from 21-10-1969 to 18-8-1976 and as Ty. Khalasi from 20-8-1976 to 18-1-1977. He was confirmed on 1-1-1989 after serving as Temporary Gangman from 1-1-1980. The Respondents counted his service only from 1-1-1980 to 30-6-1989 and left out the service as casual service and service on temporary status. In O.A. No. 2151 of 2007 and 3 others, the Tribunal relied on the High Court judgment in the case of Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway and another v. Sita Ram [ 2014 (1) AISLJ 372 ] and Union of India and another v. Manash Sarkar [ 2013 (3) SLR 296 ]. In those judgments, it was held that the concession of counting half of the service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, i.e. casual labour attained temporary status will count half of the casual service and full service on temporary status till regularization for the purpose of pensionary benefits by adding it to the regular service. The relevant paragraphs of that judgment, i.e. Paras. 9, 10 and 11 are reproduced verbatim. The above view is also endorsed in the case of G.M., South Central Railway v. Shaikh Abdul Kadar. Paras. 4 and 5 of that judgment is fully noted in the present judgment. The Tribunal allowed O.A. No. 2039 of 2004, Shri Brijkishore v. Union of India and another for similar reason for granting pension. Para. 12 of that judgment is reproduced for clarity. Hence the Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Applicant who is the widow of the deceased employee taking into account 50% of service rendered by her late husband as casual labour and 100% as temporary worker for the purpose of reckoning minimum qualifying service of ten years for pensionary benefits. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [ 2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 765 ] in a similar case ordered for payment of arrears limiting it to 3 years from the date of admission of the case. Paras. 4 to 8 of that judgment is reproduced verbatim. In this case, the husband of the Applicant who retired on 30-6-1989 approached the pension adalat which rejected his claim by Letter, dated 27-9-2005. Four years after the death of her husband, the Applicant herein submitted a representation for ex gratia pension and not for family pension, which was also rejected on the ground that ex gratia payment can be granted to those employees who retired prior to 1-1-1986.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text